Two Women Killed Since the Beginning of the Year - Me Mokshda Pertaub: "Without Real Protection, Femicide Will Continue"
Another woman has been killed. Shivani Saminaden, aged 30, was fatally injured following a violent dispute in her relationship, bringing the total number of femicides reported in Mauritius to two within the first week of the year. This tragic event raises questions once again about the state and society's ability to protect women at risk. Lawyer, gender expert with the United Nations, and president of MPower, Mokshda Pertaub, examines this reality in light of legal frameworks and institutional obligations.
Two femicides have been recorded in just the first week of 2026. What does this reality reveal about the situation of women in Mauritius today?This reveals a deeply unsettling truth: despite official rhetoric, awareness campaigns, and certain judicial advancements, women at risk are still not effectively protected. These early deaths in the year indicate that the issue is not isolated but structural. Femicides are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a system that fails to intervene in a timely manner, despite often clear warning signs.
With each tragedy, there is strong outrage, which then subsides. Why doesn't this collective anger translate into sustainable action?Because outrage, on its own, is not a public policy. It is emotional, reactive, and fleeting. What is lacking is a consistent political will to transform this anger into structural reforms. As long as responses remain sporadic, without mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, and accountability, we will continue to witness the same tragic cycle: shock, anger, forgetfulness… until the next femicide.
As a legal expert, would you say that the existing legal framework truly protects women?The legal framework offers theoretical protection, but real protection is lacking. Laws only save lives when they are applied rigorously, cohesively, and swiftly. However, too often, women do everything the system expects of them; they file complaints, report violence, seek help, but the institutional response is fragmented, slow, or insufficient. The law cannot simply exist; it must act.
Why is the Supreme Court judgment of December 10, 2025, considered a turning point?The ruling in the case State v. Nubbeebuccus Mamode Umaiir (2025 SCJ 575), delivered by Judge Mehdi Manrakhan, represents a major turning point as it explicitly recognizes the term "femicide," even though this offense is not yet codified in the Penal Code. Naming the crime is crucial: it acknowledges that some forms of violence are not mere domestic disputes, but acts rooted in misogyny and coercive control.
The Court emphasized that the victim had made multiple complaints and attempted to protect herself, all to no avail, highlighting an institutional failure. It also stated that the severity of the acts—prolonged violence, premeditation, and gender-based motives—fully justifies a life sentence, sending a clear message about the proportionality of sanctions.
This judgment demonstrates that naming femicide, codifying the crime, and making its penalties visible are essential to preventing future deaths and reminding society that women's lives and autonomy are non-negotiable.
The Court also acknowledged an institutional failure. What does this recognition mean?It means that the state has failed in its obligation to protect. The victim had taken numerous steps, alerted the police, and tried to seek refuge. The Court recognized that the crime was the culmination of a continuum of ignored violence. This acknowledgment is vital as it paves the way for serious reflection on institutional responsibility and the need for genuinely functional early warning mechanisms.
Why is it important to recognize femicide as a distinct offense?Because naming is recognizing. Codifying femicide would allow for the clear identification of gender-motivated crimes, improve data collection, tailor prevention policies, and send a strong message: gender-based violence is neither tolerable nor trivial. This is not a symbolic demand but an essential tool for justice and prevention.
Misogynistic and victim-blaming reactions towards victims are common. Why are they so dangerous?Because they shift the responsibility of the crime onto the victim and trivialize male violence. These discourses create a social climate where violence is excused, minimized, or even justified. They fuel impunity and deter women from seeking help. These are not just opinions; they are narratives that actively contribute to violence.
You assert that this is not ignorance, but misogyny. How can the law address these mindsets?The law is a powerful lever for social transformation. By clearly naming misogyny, recognizing gender-based violence, and imposing severe penalties for these crimes, the law redefines social norms. It sends a clear message about what is acceptable and what is not. The law does not change mindsets overnight, but it delineates the boundaries of what is tolerable.
While waiting for the reform of the Domestic Abuse Bill, what can be done immediately?A lot can be done. It is possible to immediately enhance risk assessments, especially in cases of repeated complaints, improve coordination between police, social services, and shelters, and systematically train frontline workers in trauma-informed and gender-sensitive approaches. Inaction is not a neutral option; it costs lives.
What message do you convey today to policymakers and institutions?The message is simple and grave: every delay kills. Femicides are not inevitable. They are the result of political, institutional, and social choices. Moving from outrage to action is no longer a moral option; it is a legal and human obligation. Justice cannot be solely punitive; it must be preventive. Women's lives depend on it.